Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If one is drowning in debt or has a bad credit rating, then he is marked by his employer or will not be eligible for employment in certain areas, e.g.:
- project bids/marketing
- police force
- finance .. etc
unless he is the son-in-law of .... , until $hit hits the fence.
If one is drowning in debt or has a bad credit rating, then he is marked by his employer or will not be eligible for employment in certain areas, e.g.:
- project bids/marketing
- police force
- finance .. security .. etc
unless he is the son-in-law of .... , until the $hit hits the fence.
On the earlier comments about employers looking at credit reports, I agree this goes one to some extent but it is by companies run by the stupid and you don't want to work for them anyway.
No decent company is going to consider a credit rating in regards to choosing employees. These credit reports are from private companies that produce evaluations based on secret criteria so their ratings are meaningless. Furthermore you can order a report from each of the big 3 and you will get 3 different ratings. Even the banks have started moving away from them in regards to determining credit eligibility choosing instead to perform their own credit evaluation.
The vast majority of corporate hiring is focused on job history, experience, and what they bring to the company in terms of skills. They are not going to put this evaluation in the hands of a credit reporting agency. If they are hired, the new employee have to sign a business conduct guidelines that covers their personal behavior in regards to the company and if they break it, they suffer the consequences.
Honestly I think that many in America are so obsessed with credit they have elevated the entire credit reporting system to the same status as that of a church or something.
You're the one suggesting that the "market forces" determine wages in a vacuum. I'm stating that it isn't that simple.
Much like real estate, individual attributes add or subtract from the value of a property or an employee, and similarly, you can pick up a deal on a distressed property/employee.
His wages go down, and his wages go up. You've got the first part of the equation, but not the second part, which is what happens when you have two equal employees with differing levels of bargaining power.
Employees do sign contracts which obligate them to employers, even if they aren't directly related to employment. Switching jobs costs a lot of money when you have to move, sign a lease, buy a house, get a new job for your spouse, etc. Unless there is a large local demand for your specialty, you may not have much choice but to stick with the first lousy offer you get.
If you've got the money/time to reject job offers you have more negotiating power. You don't have that opportunity with a ticking debt bomb at your feet.
Absolutely. People with mortgages are much more stable employees than renters, and this isn't just true for homeowners. I've watched people with terrible debt loads put up with so much abuse and extra workload that I was amazed they didn't go postal.
When companies are downsizing, people with a choice in the matter can look their manager in the eye and ask "What's in it for me?" when they're trying to make you do three people's work. It's a lot harder to be that bold when you just got off the phone with a debt collector.
Actually I would tend to disagree. During pre-employment screens (at least at my company where ALL employees are subjected to rigorous credit, background, employment checks-- even POST hire) high debt is NOT considered something happy or stable for the employer. In fact, high debt levels based on income concerns many because you may have more of a tendency to steal, embezzle, etc than the person who does not have as much debt load for their income.
Also, I know at the past two companies I worked for your background results are NOT known to HR, or your hiring manager-- they are done by the security branch of the company and have NOTHING to do with HR until they let HR know that you passed or did not pass the background checks.
Salaries are determined on the outset by market forces-- then they come down to the respective employee. Some employees know how to negotiate salaries up front-- you would be surprised how many people accept the first salary coming their way. Also, raises, promotions in my experience (even when I worked HR) never had anything to do with debt, slavery to the company etc. People are graded on their contributions ,work ethic, etc. Sally and I may have the exact same skill set, but I may be the one who finishes projects first, under budget, and without service issues. This makes me far more valuable than Sally even though we both have the identical degree, years of experience, and other knowledge.
People on these forums tend to sometimes think that there is some consipiracy amongst corporations to keep the average Joe down -- it is bizarre people's paranoia and overall fear of the mighty corporation.
This question always seems to generate strong opinions. Watches have different significance for every person. Whether someone can afford an expensive watch is up to them to decide, I guess. I wouldn't personally go into debt for one, but I avoid debt like the plague, so my opinion might not count for much.
Having said that, watches are as much a piece of jewelery as a way to keep time, and many watches hold much or most of their value unlike other so-called status purchases like cars. I would not expect someone who views a cell phone as a "watch replacement", to have any concept of why a person might choose to wear a watch or any other jewelery for that matter. A plastic zip tie can easily function as a wedding ring, is less expensive, easier to size, and cheaper to replace, but that doesn't make it fashionable or desirable.
I'm biased though; I have several watches in my humble collection, with a couple from Omega and a Rolex. I use my GMT Master to keep track of different time zones, exactly as as the watch was designed for. It's no secret that the same functionality can be accomplished with something less expensive. But I enjoy wearing my watches, they compliment what I'm wearing, and what I'm doing. I like having something of horological significance, made of good materials, and having automatic movements that are of extremely high quality. Those are my reasons. It doesn't hurt that brands like Omega and Rolex are recognized, and I've had numerous conversations with people who took notice of whatever watch I was wearing on a given day. Of those people, it seems that most were watch enthusiasts, to some extent.
If you peruse the watch enthusiast forums online, you'll find that people of all walks of life invest in watches, for reasons that vary as much as the people themselves.
Last edited by 43north87west; 12-04-2009 at 02:02 PM..
In your opinion, is wearing an expensive wrist-watch such as Rolex, Omega, Patek, Breitling, Girard Perregaux, etc., a sign of of success and worth the money or a waste? Seems as if more and more professionals, many of whom appear to be just starting their careers, are going into debt by purchasing and wearing $1,500-$9,000 watches to work.
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with someone wearing expensive watches, if they can afford them. But, it seems as though more and more professionals are wearing expensive watches "for show" or to impress their co-workers. And, those who can't afford the real thing, resort to wearing fake or replica watches to impress their colleagues.
Do you think most business professionals wear expensive watches to impress others or because they see the value of craftsmanship in expensive watches?
Who bothers wearing a watch? Doesn't your palm, crackberry etc. have a clock?
I haven't worn a watch since sometime in the Clinton Administration.
I think spending that kind of money solely to "impress" people shows insecurity and professional people can smell that stink of fear. If you like them, buy them and enjoy them but to buy them for status is dumb.
People on these forums tend to sometimes think that there is some consipiracy amongst corporations to keep the average Joe down -- it is bizarre people's paranoia and overall fear of the mighty corporation.
It isn't a conspiracy to keep people down. Rather, it's the shareholder demand to keep themselves up regardless of the ethics of how they treat employees.
If a manager wants their bonus, they have to hit their numbers. Sales/productivity are a part of those numbers, but cutting back on expenses is the other part. When your company is running a 5% margin, every $50K in salary you can cut is equal to a million dollars in sales. If you were that manager and you were a million short in sales, what would you do? Would you rather sacrifice your bonus for the benefit of your employees, or would you look out for yourself?
If you did decide to cut back on salaries to save your bonus, would you rather cut the salaries of 10 people with families to support, or would you axe a single $50K/year employee who tries to impress everybody by showing off his Rolex?
Even if you aren't managing a company, ethics plays a role. Would you be willing to sacrifice a couple % return on your 401K to invest in companies who don't offshore work and treat their employees well? Is there even a fund you can choose to do that?
Last edited by sterlinggirl; 12-04-2009 at 03:22 PM..
I've noticed a drastic decrease in expensive watches (all watches, really), and an increase in expensive PDAs/Smartphones. Most people, even Wall St. types, don't wear them anymore because they have been replaced.
It isn't a conspiracy to keep people down. Rather, it's the shareholder demand to keep themselves up regardless of the ethics of how they treat employees.
If a manager wants their bonus, they have to hit their numbers. Sales/productivity are a part of those numbers, but cutting back on expenses is the other part. When your company is running a 5% margin, every $50K in salary you can cut is equal to a million dollars in sales. If you were that manager and you were a million short in sales, what would you do? Would you rather sacrifice your bonus for the benefit of your employees, or would you look out for yourself?
If you did decide to cut back on salaries to save your bonus, would you rather cut the salaries of 10 people with families to support, or would you axe a single $50K/year employee who tries to impress everybody by showing off his Rolex?
Even if you aren't managing a company, ethics plays a role. Would you be willing to sacrifice a couple % return on your 401K to invest in companies who don't offshore work and treat their employees well? Is there even a fund you can choose to do that?
One reason I love my employer...a major corporation. We get bonuses as a % of salary. Mine is 15%. The company can fund the bonus pool 0%, 50%, 120% etc. and it affects EVERYONE in the bonus pool. So, our office head probably has a target bonus of 250k or more. If the pool is 0% we both get squat. (P.S. I can tell you for a fact that he deserves every penny he earns too....if he makes a million a year it's peanuts compared to the impact he has. If he screws up or does well it affects hundreds of us directly not to mention the milinos of investors.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
